Why is a space homeomorphic to the orbit space of its universal cover by its deck transformations?
Below is an excerpt from Hatcher's Algebraic Topology, page 72:
I don't understand why the part above highlighted in red is generally true. I can relate it to an example where it is true though: We can consider $S^1$ covered by $mathbb{R}$. Then the deck transformations of $mathbb{R}$ correspond to the action of $mathbb{Z}$ on $mathbb{R}$ via translation by an integer. Hence, indeed we have $mathbb{R} / mathbb{Z} cong S^1$. But I don't know why the statement $tilde{X} / G(tilde{X}) cong X$ is true in general.
general-topology algebraic-topology
add a comment |
Below is an excerpt from Hatcher's Algebraic Topology, page 72:
I don't understand why the part above highlighted in red is generally true. I can relate it to an example where it is true though: We can consider $S^1$ covered by $mathbb{R}$. Then the deck transformations of $mathbb{R}$ correspond to the action of $mathbb{Z}$ on $mathbb{R}$ via translation by an integer. Hence, indeed we have $mathbb{R} / mathbb{Z} cong S^1$. But I don't know why the statement $tilde{X} / G(tilde{X}) cong X$ is true in general.
general-topology algebraic-topology
add a comment |
Below is an excerpt from Hatcher's Algebraic Topology, page 72:
I don't understand why the part above highlighted in red is generally true. I can relate it to an example where it is true though: We can consider $S^1$ covered by $mathbb{R}$. Then the deck transformations of $mathbb{R}$ correspond to the action of $mathbb{Z}$ on $mathbb{R}$ via translation by an integer. Hence, indeed we have $mathbb{R} / mathbb{Z} cong S^1$. But I don't know why the statement $tilde{X} / G(tilde{X}) cong X$ is true in general.
general-topology algebraic-topology
Below is an excerpt from Hatcher's Algebraic Topology, page 72:
I don't understand why the part above highlighted in red is generally true. I can relate it to an example where it is true though: We can consider $S^1$ covered by $mathbb{R}$. Then the deck transformations of $mathbb{R}$ correspond to the action of $mathbb{Z}$ on $mathbb{R}$ via translation by an integer. Hence, indeed we have $mathbb{R} / mathbb{Z} cong S^1$. But I don't know why the statement $tilde{X} / G(tilde{X}) cong X$ is true in general.
general-topology algebraic-topology
general-topology algebraic-topology
edited Nov 27 at 3:27
asked Nov 27 at 3:11
Frederic Chopin
321111
321111
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Here's the idea: given a "normal" covering space $widetilde{X}xrightarrow{p} X$, a deck transformation is an automorphism $phiin operatorname{Aut}(widetilde{X})$ that preserves fibres, so that $ p=pcirc phi.$ It can be shown (and is in Hatcher) that given $xin X$, and any pair of points $y,zin p^{-1}(x)$ there exists a deck transformation $phi in G(widetilde{X})$ with $phi(y)=z$. That is, the action is transitive.
So, the intuition here is that when we quotient by $G(widetilde{X})$ action on $widetilde{X}$, we think of points as being "the same" if they can be related by the action of an element of $G(widetilde{X})$. Over each $x$ there is a fibre $p^{-1}(x)$ which corresponds to a single orbit $mathcal{O}_x$ under the $G(widetilde{X})-$action. After quotienting, we are left with the space ${mathcal{O}_x:xin X}$. You can check that its quotient topology of $X/G(widetilde{X})$ is precisely the topology of $X$ so that $widetilde{X}/G(widetilde{X})cong X$ by the obvious map $mathcal{O}_xmapsto x$. (This isn't too hard to see if you leverage the local triviality of the covering space.)
To create $phi$ I would pick a small (simply connected) neighborhood $U$ of $y$ such that $p|_U$ is injective, then find in $p^{-1}(p(U)) = bigcup_j V_j$ the $V_j$ containing $z$, for $u in U$ set $phi(u) = p^{-1}(p(u)) cap V_j$. Doing that repeatedly with $u,phi(u)$ instead of $y,z$ will extend $phi$ to the whole $tilde{X}$
– reuns
Nov 27 at 3:59
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3015280%2fwhy-is-a-space-homeomorphic-to-the-orbit-space-of-its-universal-cover-by-its-dec%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Here's the idea: given a "normal" covering space $widetilde{X}xrightarrow{p} X$, a deck transformation is an automorphism $phiin operatorname{Aut}(widetilde{X})$ that preserves fibres, so that $ p=pcirc phi.$ It can be shown (and is in Hatcher) that given $xin X$, and any pair of points $y,zin p^{-1}(x)$ there exists a deck transformation $phi in G(widetilde{X})$ with $phi(y)=z$. That is, the action is transitive.
So, the intuition here is that when we quotient by $G(widetilde{X})$ action on $widetilde{X}$, we think of points as being "the same" if they can be related by the action of an element of $G(widetilde{X})$. Over each $x$ there is a fibre $p^{-1}(x)$ which corresponds to a single orbit $mathcal{O}_x$ under the $G(widetilde{X})-$action. After quotienting, we are left with the space ${mathcal{O}_x:xin X}$. You can check that its quotient topology of $X/G(widetilde{X})$ is precisely the topology of $X$ so that $widetilde{X}/G(widetilde{X})cong X$ by the obvious map $mathcal{O}_xmapsto x$. (This isn't too hard to see if you leverage the local triviality of the covering space.)
To create $phi$ I would pick a small (simply connected) neighborhood $U$ of $y$ such that $p|_U$ is injective, then find in $p^{-1}(p(U)) = bigcup_j V_j$ the $V_j$ containing $z$, for $u in U$ set $phi(u) = p^{-1}(p(u)) cap V_j$. Doing that repeatedly with $u,phi(u)$ instead of $y,z$ will extend $phi$ to the whole $tilde{X}$
– reuns
Nov 27 at 3:59
add a comment |
Here's the idea: given a "normal" covering space $widetilde{X}xrightarrow{p} X$, a deck transformation is an automorphism $phiin operatorname{Aut}(widetilde{X})$ that preserves fibres, so that $ p=pcirc phi.$ It can be shown (and is in Hatcher) that given $xin X$, and any pair of points $y,zin p^{-1}(x)$ there exists a deck transformation $phi in G(widetilde{X})$ with $phi(y)=z$. That is, the action is transitive.
So, the intuition here is that when we quotient by $G(widetilde{X})$ action on $widetilde{X}$, we think of points as being "the same" if they can be related by the action of an element of $G(widetilde{X})$. Over each $x$ there is a fibre $p^{-1}(x)$ which corresponds to a single orbit $mathcal{O}_x$ under the $G(widetilde{X})-$action. After quotienting, we are left with the space ${mathcal{O}_x:xin X}$. You can check that its quotient topology of $X/G(widetilde{X})$ is precisely the topology of $X$ so that $widetilde{X}/G(widetilde{X})cong X$ by the obvious map $mathcal{O}_xmapsto x$. (This isn't too hard to see if you leverage the local triviality of the covering space.)
To create $phi$ I would pick a small (simply connected) neighborhood $U$ of $y$ such that $p|_U$ is injective, then find in $p^{-1}(p(U)) = bigcup_j V_j$ the $V_j$ containing $z$, for $u in U$ set $phi(u) = p^{-1}(p(u)) cap V_j$. Doing that repeatedly with $u,phi(u)$ instead of $y,z$ will extend $phi$ to the whole $tilde{X}$
– reuns
Nov 27 at 3:59
add a comment |
Here's the idea: given a "normal" covering space $widetilde{X}xrightarrow{p} X$, a deck transformation is an automorphism $phiin operatorname{Aut}(widetilde{X})$ that preserves fibres, so that $ p=pcirc phi.$ It can be shown (and is in Hatcher) that given $xin X$, and any pair of points $y,zin p^{-1}(x)$ there exists a deck transformation $phi in G(widetilde{X})$ with $phi(y)=z$. That is, the action is transitive.
So, the intuition here is that when we quotient by $G(widetilde{X})$ action on $widetilde{X}$, we think of points as being "the same" if they can be related by the action of an element of $G(widetilde{X})$. Over each $x$ there is a fibre $p^{-1}(x)$ which corresponds to a single orbit $mathcal{O}_x$ under the $G(widetilde{X})-$action. After quotienting, we are left with the space ${mathcal{O}_x:xin X}$. You can check that its quotient topology of $X/G(widetilde{X})$ is precisely the topology of $X$ so that $widetilde{X}/G(widetilde{X})cong X$ by the obvious map $mathcal{O}_xmapsto x$. (This isn't too hard to see if you leverage the local triviality of the covering space.)
Here's the idea: given a "normal" covering space $widetilde{X}xrightarrow{p} X$, a deck transformation is an automorphism $phiin operatorname{Aut}(widetilde{X})$ that preserves fibres, so that $ p=pcirc phi.$ It can be shown (and is in Hatcher) that given $xin X$, and any pair of points $y,zin p^{-1}(x)$ there exists a deck transformation $phi in G(widetilde{X})$ with $phi(y)=z$. That is, the action is transitive.
So, the intuition here is that when we quotient by $G(widetilde{X})$ action on $widetilde{X}$, we think of points as being "the same" if they can be related by the action of an element of $G(widetilde{X})$. Over each $x$ there is a fibre $p^{-1}(x)$ which corresponds to a single orbit $mathcal{O}_x$ under the $G(widetilde{X})-$action. After quotienting, we are left with the space ${mathcal{O}_x:xin X}$. You can check that its quotient topology of $X/G(widetilde{X})$ is precisely the topology of $X$ so that $widetilde{X}/G(widetilde{X})cong X$ by the obvious map $mathcal{O}_xmapsto x$. (This isn't too hard to see if you leverage the local triviality of the covering space.)
answered Nov 27 at 3:43
Antonios-Alexandros Robotis
9,15041640
9,15041640
To create $phi$ I would pick a small (simply connected) neighborhood $U$ of $y$ such that $p|_U$ is injective, then find in $p^{-1}(p(U)) = bigcup_j V_j$ the $V_j$ containing $z$, for $u in U$ set $phi(u) = p^{-1}(p(u)) cap V_j$. Doing that repeatedly with $u,phi(u)$ instead of $y,z$ will extend $phi$ to the whole $tilde{X}$
– reuns
Nov 27 at 3:59
add a comment |
To create $phi$ I would pick a small (simply connected) neighborhood $U$ of $y$ such that $p|_U$ is injective, then find in $p^{-1}(p(U)) = bigcup_j V_j$ the $V_j$ containing $z$, for $u in U$ set $phi(u) = p^{-1}(p(u)) cap V_j$. Doing that repeatedly with $u,phi(u)$ instead of $y,z$ will extend $phi$ to the whole $tilde{X}$
– reuns
Nov 27 at 3:59
To create $phi$ I would pick a small (simply connected) neighborhood $U$ of $y$ such that $p|_U$ is injective, then find in $p^{-1}(p(U)) = bigcup_j V_j$ the $V_j$ containing $z$, for $u in U$ set $phi(u) = p^{-1}(p(u)) cap V_j$. Doing that repeatedly with $u,phi(u)$ instead of $y,z$ will extend $phi$ to the whole $tilde{X}$
– reuns
Nov 27 at 3:59
To create $phi$ I would pick a small (simply connected) neighborhood $U$ of $y$ such that $p|_U$ is injective, then find in $p^{-1}(p(U)) = bigcup_j V_j$ the $V_j$ containing $z$, for $u in U$ set $phi(u) = p^{-1}(p(u)) cap V_j$. Doing that repeatedly with $u,phi(u)$ instead of $y,z$ will extend $phi$ to the whole $tilde{X}$
– reuns
Nov 27 at 3:59
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3015280%2fwhy-is-a-space-homeomorphic-to-the-orbit-space-of-its-universal-cover-by-its-dec%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown